According to reports, American’s shopper watchdog has sued Samsung physical science Co Ltd.’s Australian unit for allegedly dishonest the purchasers by promoting waterproof Galaxy smartphones as appropriate to use in swimming pools and the surf.
The world’s largest smartphone maker didn’t apprehend or even didn’t sufficiently check the consequences of pool or brine exposure on its phones once ads incontestable them utterly submerged, the Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission (ACCC) lawsuit say.
This case is the first filed by a major regulator and could result in multi-million-dollar fines. It centers on more than 300 advertisements in which Samsung showed its Galaxy smartphones being used at the bottom of swimming pools and in the ocean.
“The ACCC alleges Samsung’s advertisements incorrectly and deceivingly portrayed Galaxy phones would be appropriate to be used in, or for exposure to all types of water … when this was not the case,” same ACCC Chairman Rod Sims. Samsung said it stood by its advertising, complied with Australian law and would also defend the case.
The South Korean physical science big has spent heavily on advertising to construct the public’s religion in its premium smartphones following the expensive recall of its fire-prone Galaxy Note seven devices in 2016.
It is due to announce the preliminary quarterly earnings on Friday when it is widely expected to flag a profit plunge due to falls in chip prices.
The biggest smartphone maker’s water resistance claims came under heavy scrutiny as early as 2016 when influential U.S. magazine Consumer Reports said the Galaxy S7 smartphone- which appears dunked in a fish tank in TV commercials- had failed an immersion test. This was immediately attributed to a manufacturing defect, affecting a small number of phones, which it soon fixed. But customers online continued reporting problems, according to a forum. “Samsung showed the Galaxy phones employed in things they shouldn’t be to draw in customers,” Sims said. “Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied customers associate privy alternative associated gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage.”